Hello everyone
This email is to Jonathan, Kevin and Rich and any others who are interested.
>Jonathan writes:
>Hi all,
>
>Kevin wrote:
>>I don't know whether Pirsig agrees, but he seems to bounce around the
>issue
>>quite nicely on several occasions. He say Dynamic Quality is constant.
>He
>>says Its *between* the object and subject. He says Its the cutting edge
>of
>>reality, through which every-thing is created. I think these add up to
>the
>>explaination that Dynamic Quality is in all static things, but
>transcedes
>>them all. The static realm is one of false divisions; it takes no leap
>of
>>logic to conclude the Dynamic Quality united these division and from
>this
>>union the separation of subject and object comes into static existence.
>>
>Jonathan:
>
>First, I think that Pirsig is talking about Quality in total rather than
>DQ as distinct from SQ.
>Secondly, to talk about "false divisions" implies that there might be
>"true divisions" which is the idealist position.
>On the other hand to reject all divisions (mysticism) seems to me the
>complete opposite to pragmatism and most unPirsigian.
Glove:
I have been attempting to write a response about mysticism but nothing has
appeared. So perhaps it's better that I just do not try. Mysticism as it is
normally understood is not really about rejecting all divisions. Perhaps
superficially it may seem as such, but underneath, all forms of mysticism
require the learning of a new set of values, and these are static quality
patterns of value. In dealing with power we are forced to order it or to be
blown away by it. We are all really just mystics in straitjackets.
>Jonathan:
>
>The trouble is
>that our picture of reality is (correctly) a picture of REALised
>patterns. DQ is excluded because it is preintellectual, or prereal. This
>is why I like to think of DQ as potential, something that is latent
>state prior to its realization.
Glove:
I like this too. Potential seems to contain the inate sense of being potent,
or having the power to follow the best path.
>
>[snip]
>>Kevin:
>>I think Dynamic Quality birthed the inorganic level. Chaos is a crude
>term
>>which Pirsig uses, but there is no difference between it and Dynamic
>>Quality. ...
>Jonathan:
>
>Pirsig admits to creating confusion in the way he talks about chaos. You
>can't really define chaos, because it means a lack of pattern. As soon
>as you put on a definition, that in itself is a pattern. One might
>equate chaos with randomness, but that is equally problematic to define.
>e.g. as I stated in a post some while ago, there is no computer function
>to generate a random number - it would be a contradiction. As an
>alternative, computers can be programmed to generate ARBITRARY numbers.
>To call something chaotic is to say that it lacks pattern, though that
>seems to me an entirely subjective assessment. If you look carefully
>enough at a chaotic situation, patterns become apparent and once they
>do, you can no longer consider the situation chaotic. This surely is the
>history of human knowledge.
Glove:
I find this immensely interesting. I take it to mean that the computer must
start with a certain finite set of numbers before it can generate any
function at all. This in itself eliminates the possibility of a random
number function, right? One cannot pull infinity out of the finite? I don't
know if anyone else has noticed this, but in the lottery, there seems to be
a disportionate number of winners who pick their own birthday, or the
birthdays of relatives (or some other pet way) for their numbers. I don't
know if anyone has ever done a study on this, and perhaps it's just blind
chance, a random occurence. I suspect it may be Dynamic in nature though,
arbitrary rather than random.
Jonathan's paragraph above also seems to be an excellent answer to Rich's
question of "what the mystics are doing?"
>Jonathan:
> I could go on discussing this for ages - indeed I have in different
>guises through several months of contributions to the Lila Squad. I
>believe that one can find a consistent pattern which appears throughout.
>It's a theme that now seems obvious to me and it surfaces all the time.
>Here is a quote from a non-philosophy novel I was just reading ("Cold
>Mountain" by Charles Frazier):-
>"- You commence by trying to see what likes what, Ruby said. Which Ada
>interpreted to mean, Observe and understand the workings of affinity in
>nature.
> Ruby pointed to red splashes of color on the green hillside of the
>ridge: sumac and dogwood trning color in advance of other trees. Why
>would they do that near a month ahead? she said.
> -Chance? Ada said.
> Ruby made a little sound like spitting a fleck of dirt or a gnat from
>the tip of her tongue. Her view was that people like to lay off anything
>they can't fathom as random."
>
>That last sentence is a gem. To call something random or chaotic is to
>say it lacks meaning and value. That's the option for the intellectually
>lazy.
Glove:
I love it! That sounds like a great book and I am going to order it. I am
now (re)reading The Glass Bead Game (Das Glasperlenspiel) by Herman Hesse.
Allow me to offer an excerpt as well:
"Oh, if only it were possible to find understanding," Joseph exclaimed. "If
only there were dogma to believe in. Everything is contradictory, everything
tangential; there are no certainties anywhere. Everything can be interpreted
in the opposite sense. The whole world history can be explained as
development and progress and can also be seen as nothing but decadence and
meaninglessness. Isn't there any truth? Is there no real and valid
doctrine?" (Joseph speaking to his Music Master)
The Glass Bead Game is Hermann Hesse's last and probably greatest and
deepest work. It's a really good read.
>Jonathan:
>
>"Does Lila have quality?" The lazy answer is no. Phaedrus was willing to
>make the effort to find a yes answer.
>To find meaning is also to create meaning - it takes care and effort
>(maybe "gumption" is the right word).
Glove:
Wonderfully put!
>Jonathan:
>
>Pirsig didn't discover something new. He tries to draw our attention to
>something that is so ubiquitous that it is easily overlooked ("We can't
>see the wood for the trees"). I find little gems, like the one I quoted
>above, all the time.
>
> I could go on discussing this for ages - oh, I already said that in
>this post, so I'd better just end off right now.
>
>Jonathan
Glove:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts Jonathan, Kevin, Rich and everyone.
Best wishes,
glove
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:55 BST